Nikon vs Canon I'm seriously considering either the Nikon N80 or the Canon XTi. The Nikon lens 18-200 and camera size are strengths for the N80, but the dust clearing on Canon seems to be important. Does anyone have experience as to whether they really believe that this should be an essential now that it's available. I've done a lot of shooting with a friend's 20D and we've had some problems with the dust issues. Although he tends to change lens a lot, and with the Nikon, I'd be using the 18-200 almost always. Nikon vs Canon I'm seriously considering either the Nikon N80 or the Canon XTi. The Nikon lens 18-200 and camera size are strengths for the N80, but the dust clearing on Canon seems to be... » Read More Nikon vs Canon I'm seriously considering either the Nikon N80 or the Canon XTi. The Nikon lens 18-200 and camera size are strengths for the N80, but the dust clearing on Canon seems to be important. Does anyone have experience as to whether they really believe that this should be an essential now that it's available. I've done a lot of shooting with a friend's 20D and we've had some problems with the dust issues. Although he tends to change lens a lot, and with the Nikon, I'd be using the 18-200 almost always. « Show Less
26491
Nikon Glass is superior to Canon. Anyone using both systems as i do will tell you the same.
26492
I was also looking at Pentax 10D pre-production reviews. Looks like pentax has similar features including dust cleaning like canon and Image Stabilization like sony. I was planing to buy Canon since it is $200 cheaper but now probably will wait till i get to read Pentax reviews .. any idea about the avaliability of lenses for Pentax??
26493
Both are great cameras that will give you really nice photographs. My preference is Nikon due to feel and ease of control. When in actual shooting situations with little time for confusion, the Nikon seems to provide an edge. Lenses are generally better in contrast, color and resolution.
26494
Dust is an issue if you plan to change lense often. I have a XTi, despite the dust cleaning system I don't plan to remove the lens much. Dust is a real problem for digital as the camera back never gets replaced unlike film.Also, D80 is $200 more than XTi. Nikon lenses are usually more expensive. Quality wise, i think, they are fairly equivalent. Your skills will probably make more difference than the equipment.
347542
I am in the same boat, XSi or D90. Right now, I am leaning towards the Xsi, for around $650 at Amazon, this is a big savings, the camera was $900 in April. I would like the video option, and I believe that the Nikon will provide better detail in low light. However, I still am having a hard time justifying the extra, almost $600. I could almost buy another Xsi for that difference. I am not sure that the price difference is justified.
501123
Congrats on the nice lens! I have the 17-85. It's better than my 18-55, but I would love to get the 17-55 someday. Heck, I'd like to get a lot of different lenses someday! But being completely new to dslr, I think what I have now will suffice until I get going.
1998390
This was just the post I was looking for. My daughter has the D80 (I think) and wants to step up to more manual features, rather than simply point and shoot. Already familiar with Nikon layout - she selected the 3100 for her next step up but I was wondering what the differences were with the 5100. I agree with the swivel ability of the screen. She does a lot of self and group portraits that I think is needed for such situations. Anyhoo, I am glad I found you two talking about this.
2254947
Thanks for the good info. I had a Canon Rebel that I returned because of picture quality with the standard kit lens. I have been trying to decide between the Nikon D90 & the Pentax K20D. I am going to go with the K20D and start with the 18-250 and see how far I go. So I am off to shop now. Again... Thanks a lot.
24765
I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos at effective focal length of 1000mm. This does require use of manual focus mode. I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos... » Read More I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos at effective focal length of 1000mm. This does require use of manual focus mode. « Show Less
1203850
yep. I am going to amend my advice and recommend the Tokina 11-16 2.8. This gets excellent reviews and is faster than the others for low light shooting such as UW. I shot with the 10-24 such subjects as a gilded church. It came out spectacular. All in all, if money is not an issue, it is a tossup between the nikon and tokina. I switched to fx format and now use the nikon 12-24. It's a monster. BTW, another great option for the Nikon DX is the great 18-200 zoom.
1713457
The 300 F2.8 is one of the best lens Nikon has ever made and is better. The added reach and the fact that the 300 F 2.8 works perfectly with 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 converters makes it the perfect choice. I have tried the 500 F4 and it is way to big to carry around or hold. The 300 f 2.8 is still large but can be handheld which is huge. Thanks for asking.
2174721
I have a 20D. The answer is, it depends on what you want to do. The EF 24-70 and the 70-200 both have the "red stripe" and are top-of-the-line, awesome lenses. They rely on big optics with the 77mm objective lens to produce their images. They are great at all times, especiallhy in low light. They are also very heavy and quite expensive. Get them if you are going for absolute, uncompromising photos. Get a tripod or monopod, too, unless you do arm curls in your spare time! If you want excellent photos with less weight and expense, I recommend you get the EF 17-85 IS as your base lens for light weight and convenience. (If you get the "base" 18-55, you will find you quit using it the day you get a newer lens. We have a Digital Rebel that came with that lens, and we never use it. Never. Did I say "Never?" Buy a body or a kit with the 17-85 unless you are going the 24-70 route. The 18-55 only adds about $50 to the camera price, which isn't much compared to the price of the camera bodies, but why waste $50?) For telephoto zoom, the 70-300 IS is an excellent lens, about the same weight and size as the 24-70 but of course much more versatile. Then you will need a wide-angle, and again you have two ways you can go. I have a 10-22 lens that was less costly than Canon's red-stripe wide angles, and I am well-pleased. You get some parallax below a focal length of 12-14, but it's kind of a neat effect if you like it. I hope this helps.
298205
Olympus dust removal is far superior, compared to any other Dslr's on the market.I'm changing lenses on my "Oly" quite often and never had any visible dust in my photos.So if you're going to switch lenses a lot, then Olympus is the right choice for you.You wrote: "When looking at the features of the Olympus E-510 vs. the XSi it is quite interesting as the E-510 has many similar features like: live view, dust removal, image stabilization." Canon never had & probably never will have "in body image stabilization", if that's what you're suggesting.They make lenses with IS - image stabilization and you have to pay extra for it every time you invest in a new glass.I hope this helps a little bit.BRN Olympus dust removal is far superior, compared to any other Dslr's on the market.I'm changing lenses on my "Oly" quite often and never had any visible dust in my photos.So if you're going to switch lenses a lot, then Olympus is the right choice for you.You wrote: "When looking at the features of the Olympus E-510 vs. the XSi it is quite interesting as the E-510 has many similar features like: live view, dust removal, image stabilization." Canon never had & probably never will have "in body image stabilization", if... » Read More Olympus dust removal is far superior, compared to any other Dslr's on the market.I'm changing lenses on my "Oly" quite often and never had any visible dust in my photos.So if you're going to switch lenses a lot, then Olympus is the right choice for you.You wrote: "When looking at the features of the Olympus E-510 vs. the XSi it is quite interesting as the E-510 has many similar features like: live view, dust removal, image stabilization." Canon never had & probably never will have "in body image stabilization", if that's what you're suggesting.They make lenses with IS - image stabilization and you have to pay extra for it every time you invest in a new glass.I hope this helps a little bit.BRN « Show Less
1784427
The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies.
1787339
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full believer in is, and the 24-105 is the best walk around particularly for full frame that i have met. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full... » Read More Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full believer in is, and the 24-105 is the best walk around particularly for full frame that i have met. « Show Less
1578626
I highly recommend you put this question in the Nikon forum on photo.net. Experts there can give you a better answer than me. Most seem to agree that the TC 1.4 III is a very good telecom better but the majority think the 2.0 is not so good. Personally I have both and have had good success with them. The 800 mm lens is a beast and can only work with a good tripod which will add at least a $1000 to the final price. IThe size and weight mean you have to be very committed if you are going to take this lens into the field. A good prime like the f2.8 300mm is about as much as I would be prepared to use if I were walking about with the camera. It is even possible to do hand held shooting with a lens like this, though tiring, and you get good results with the TCd. Good luck with your photography.
548595
Sorry for the late reply. I haven't used the Nikon. Just got back from Ireland. I love the Canon. Got some great shots even from the bus. The zoom was great.
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
105686
The 30D, as noted by others, is a much sturdier camera. In addition, keep in mind that it shoots at a faster rate (5 fps), has a more ergonomic set of controls, and shoots better in low light-- ranging all the way up to 3200 ISO after expansion.I wouldn't be surprised to see Canon offer a similar jump to 10.1 MP or higher in this price range soon, more to compete with Nikon's D80 and D200 than to compete with their own product.That said, I'm adding the XTi as a backup to my existing 20D.
227602
Just bought the D40x two weeks ago, and spent the weeks before that researching the D40x vs. the XTi.I'd go with the D40x... you can't go wrong with a Nikon, and the kit lens that comes with the XTi is terrible. I bought the D40x, and have since added a few accessories. I feel like I made the right decision and I am totally thrilled with the purchase... No regrets at all. Plus, Nikon makes a longer-lasting camera.D40x!!!